11961679 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013)

Ex Parte Curtis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 2013

11961679 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/961,679 12/20/2007 Scott Curtis CT-RAD-011/US (P140) 6715 71739 7590 12/20/2013 Concert Technology Corporation 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER MAMILLAPALLI, PAVAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SCOTT CURTIS ____________________ Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 15 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a system and method for allowing a user to generate focused content results, including audio and/or video content. (Abstract). Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter with the disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for filtering content, comprising: generating, by a server, first content results based on first filter settings applied to a source of content; receiving, by the server, a content selection from a user device from among the first content results; in response to receipt of the content selection, generating, on the server, a suggestive characteristic unaccounted for in the first filter settings applied to the source of content based on the content selection; providing, by the server, the suggestive characteristic to the user device; receiving, by the server, a selection of the suggestive characteristic from the user device; Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 3 in response to receipt of the selection, adding, by the server, the suggestive characteristic received from the user device to the first filter settings to provide second filter settings; and generating second content results based on the second filter settings applied to the source of content. References Cone US 2006/0195442 A1 Aug. 31, 2006 (filed Feb. 3, 2006) Ramer US 2007/0061301 A1 Mar. 15, 2007 (filed Jan. 19, 2007) Rejection The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramer in view of Cone. 12 We have only considered those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 3). 2 The Examiner objected to claim 25 (Fin. Rej. 2); however, since this is a petitionable issue, this matter is not before us. Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 4 ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, and 17-25 Appellant argues Cone does not teach “‘receiving’ the ‘content selection’ from ‘among the first content results’ and ‘in response to receipt of the content selection, generating, on the server, a suggestive characteristic unaccounted for in the first filter settings…based on the content selection’” (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends Cone teaches the suggestions are displayed prior to a search term being inputted or after a search has been performed not in response to selection of a search result listing (id., (citing Cone Figs. 2-5; ¶¶[0152] and [0173]). Thus, according to Appellant, Cone teaches suggestions come from the web activities of search engine users, but Cone does not teach “a suggestive characteristic” generated in response to “the receipt of the content selection,” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant also argues Cone does not teach the server adding the suggestive characteristic received from the user device to the first filter settings to provide second filter settings (App. Br. 11). Appellant maintains Cone’s Figure 7 describes element 27, cited by the Examiner as teaching this claim limitation, is not added to suggestions (10) to provide filtering for the search engine; rather, according to Appellants, Cone teaches element 27 selectively filters the search results (8) and suggestions (10) (id., (citing Cone ¶0152, ¶193)). Thus, Appellant contends element 27 of Cone is not being added to suggestion (10), but instead filters the suggestion (id.). Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ramer and Cone teaches “in response to receipt of the content selection, Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 5 generating, on the server, a suggestive characteristic unaccounted for in the first filter settings applied to the source of the content based on the content selection,” as recited in claim 1(emphasis added)? Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ramer and Cone teaches “in response to receipt the selection, adding, by the server, the suggestive characteristic received from the user device to the first filter settings to provide second filter settings,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)? ANALYSIS As to Issues 1a and 1b, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of any error in the Examiner’s stated position, which we adopt as our own (Ans. 5-7 and 24). We emphasize Cone discloses the search engine monitors which suggestions (10) are accessed by the user, as shown in step 30 (Fig. 7; see also ¶¶[0193]-[0195] describing the steps of Figure 7). Furthermore, as shown in Figure 7, steps 26, 28, and 30 are repeated (Fig. 7; see also ¶[0195]). Therefore, we find upon repetition of this method step, the suggestive characteristic (i.e., the seeded suggestions) are added to the first filter to provide second filter settings. Likewise, upon a second iteration, a second group of seeded suggestions are added to the second filter settings to provide third filter settings, etc. Accordingly, we find, starting at the second iteration, Cone teaches in response to receipt of a content selection (i.e., the first suggestion (10) accessed by the user during the first iteration) the server generates additional seeded suggestions “unaccounted for in the first filter settings” (i.e., the filter settings comprising the first group of seeded suggestions) applied to the source content based on the Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 6 content selection because the method is repeated following the first selection of a suggestion (10) by the user to create the second filter settings (see Fig. 7). Appellant’s argument that this is not “in response to receipt of the content selection” (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive as the claim does not require a specific starting point. Similarly, Appellant’s argument that even if the suggestions further refine the search results, nothing is added to the first filter setting to provide second filter settings (Reply Br. 4) is not persuasive as the user’s previous search history may be used in refining the suggestions (¶¶[0193]-[0195]). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ramer and Cone teaches: “in response to receipt of the content selection, generating, on the server, a suggestive characteristic unaccounted for in the first filter settings applied to the source of the content based on the content selection” and “in response to receipt the selection, adding, by the server, the suggestive characteristic received from the user device to the first filter settings to provide second filter settings,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as commensurately recited in independent claims 13 and 25. Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 11, 14, and 17-24 were not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, and 17-25 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Ramer in view of Cone. Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 7 ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4 and 16 Appellant argues search results that are grouped into categories are not a “channel,” as required by claims 4 and 16 (App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellant asserts the Examiner erred in reasoning Ramer’s disclosure of search results, which are grouped into categories, teaches a “channel” (id.). Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ramer and Cone teaches “creating a channel based on the second filter settings” as recited in claim 4 and commensurately recited in claim 16? ANALYSIS We do not find Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5) persuasive of error in the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 4, 15, and 26). Initially, we note Appellant has not explicitly defined “channel” in the Specification nor proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error (see Ans. 26; see also Spec. 6-7, ¶¶ [0025] and [0027]). The Examiner provides a well-reasoned explanation, including citation to several paragraphs of Ramer demonstrating how Ramer teaches the claimed “creating a channel . . .” step (id.). Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s findings are in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramer and Cone. Appeal 2011-007651 Application 11/961,679 8 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16-25 3 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramer and Cone is affirmed. AFFIRMED ELD 3 Should there be further prosecution with respect to claim 25, the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OFFICIAL GAZETTE U.S. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. 212 (Feb. 23, 2010), and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (2013) (“the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent.”)